Further to my post of 27.07.2012 here, my email to the Diocese of Brentwood, regarding Jon Cruddas MP, read as follows:
Message:
Could someone please explain to this confused expatriate Catholic why J Cruddas, M.P. has been chosen to speak at a Catholic conference, when his parliamentary voting record and public remarks differ so widely from Catholic teaching?
Thank you and God bless.
Could someone please explain to this confused expatriate Catholic why J Cruddas, M.P. has been chosen to speak at a Catholic conference, when his parliamentary voting record and public remarks differ so widely from Catholic teaching?
Thank you and God bless.
was replied to today, thus:
Dear Mr Wright
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted.
CJSR
Thank you for your email, the contents of which have been noted.
CJSR
I am deeply gratified, and all my worries are laid to rest.
13 comments:
There is a war inside the Church Footer,.. we all got to be prepared for martyrdom,..look at the whole Dolan/Obama dinner invite,...
The Commission for Justice and Social responsibility has form: look here.
I think, in bview of the appalling rudeness of the reply, you should go back, thanking them for noting the contents of your e-mail, one of which was a question, and asking when you might expect the courtesy of a reply. You might also write to the Bishop asking if he realises that people are sending anonymous e-mail as from Commissions of his Diocese.
I would settle down and have some sport with this one, in the way Patrick Moore did with the taxman. It really is disgraceful that a Catholic official should respond to a communication in this way.
(I was taught to use "Thank you for your letter, the contents of which have been noted" by a Commander RN when deliberate rudeness or insolence was intended.)
As long as it was not wrapped around a couple of dead fish you're OK Chris.
Appallingly rude, tres Eglise nouveau.
Richard - Hah! Yes, it's amazing how their Christian Charity deserts them when confronted by dinosaurs like me.
God bless!
Ttony - thank you. Your link is very revealing.
I have replied as follows:
"Dear CJSR,
Thank you for noting the comments of my email, which contained a request or question.
When may I expect a further email, answering mine, not merely acknowledging it?
Christopher Wright"
Your naval experience is very interesting. I suspected as much.
I think this may be fun. God bless!
Marco - you're right. Martyrdom if necessary, but I prefer the Inquisition! God bless!
Some dreadful mistake here: they sent you the reply meant for me... See http://ccfather.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/a-strange-coincidence.html
Coincidence? I think not...
Ben - I think this may be what they used to and maybe still do call a conditioned response.
I interpret it as, "Ouch! Don't ask me to think - it makes my brain hurt."
Sometimes a fax will get higher than an email.
Not infallible.
Mike Cliffson - thank you. I'll try.
You are so much more charitable than I am. I interpreted it as: 'I have no justification to offer for this behaviour, but am completely shameless, and anyway see no need to be answerable to an impudent pup such as yourself.'
But then I am on holiday, and therefore in a mellow mood. I would have been far less charitable under normal circumstances.
PS Love your comments policy!
Ben - please do not fuel my delusions of grandeur!
I don't know who is more uncharitable - you, in assuming their arrogance, or I, in assuming their stupidity.
God bless! Enjoy your holiday.
Post a Comment